PURPOSE: To investigate whether there is a volume threshold in target volume of brain metastases below which a small cone size and sharp penumbra in Gamma Knife (GK) may provide improved plan quality when compared to Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT)-based stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). METHODS: For patients treated on GK SRS for brain metastases in 2018-2019 in our institution, 121 patients with two and three targets were identified. Twenty-six patients with two or three brain metastases (total of 76 lesions) were selected for this study. Two VMAT plans, SmartArc (Pinnacle) and HyperArc (Eclipse), were generated retrospectively for each patient. Plan quality was evaluated based on RTOG conformity index (CI), Paddick gradient index (GI), normal tissue (NT) V12Gy and V4.5Gy. By using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for both VMAT plans (SmartArc and HyperArc) and metrics of RTOG CI and NT V12Gy, we compared GK plans to SmartArc and HyperArc plans separately to determine the threshold volume. RESULTS: For SmartArc plans, both ROC curve analyses showed a threshold volume of 0.4 cc for both CI and NT V12Gy. For HyperArc plans, the threshold volumes were 0.2 cc for the CI and 0.5 cc for NT V12Gy. GK plans produced improved dose distribution compared to VMAT for targets ≤0.4 cc, but HyperArc was found to have competing results with GK in terms of CI and NT V12Gy. For targets > 0.4 cc, both SmartArc and HyperArc showed better plan quality when compared to the GK plans. CONCLUSIONS: Target volumes ≤0.4 cc may require a small cone size and sharp penumbra in GK while for target volumes >0.4 cc, VMAT-based SRS can provide improved overall plan quality and faster treatment delivery.
PURPOSE: To investigate whether there is a volume threshold in target volume of brain metastases below which a small cone size and sharp penumbra in Gamma Knife (GK) may provide improved plan quality when compared to Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT)-based stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). METHODS: For patients treated on GK SRS for brain metastases in 2018-2019 in our institution, 121 patients with two and three targets were identified. Twenty-six patients with two or three brain metastases (total of 76 lesions) were selected for this study. Two VMAT plans, SmartArc (Pinnacle) and HyperArc (Eclipse), were generated retrospectively for each patient. Plan quality was evaluated based on RTOG conformity index (CI), Paddick gradient index (GI), normal tissue (NT) V12Gy and V4.5Gy. By using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for both VMAT plans (SmartArc and HyperArc) and metrics of RTOG CI and NT V12Gy, we compared GK plans to SmartArc and HyperArc plans separately to determine the threshold volume. RESULTS: For SmartArc plans, both ROC curve analyses showed a threshold volume of 0.4 cc for both CI and NT V12Gy. For HyperArc plans, the threshold volumes were 0.2 cc for the CI and 0.5 cc for NT V12Gy. GK plans produced improved dose distribution compared to VMAT for targets ≤0.4 cc, but HyperArc was found to have competing results with GK in terms of CI and NT V12Gy. For targets > 0.4 cc, both SmartArc and HyperArc showed better plan quality when compared to the GK plans. CONCLUSIONS: Target volumes ≤0.4 cc may require a small cone size and sharp penumbra in GK while for target volumes >0.4 cc, VMAT-based SRS can provide improved overall plan quality and faster treatment delivery.
Authors: E Shaw; R Kline; M Gillin; L Souhami; A Hirschfeld; R Dinapoli; L Martin Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1993-12-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Charles S Mayo; Linda Ding; Anthony Addesa; Sidney Kadish; T J Fitzgerald; Richard Moser Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-03-06 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Brian J Blonigen; Ryan D Steinmetz; Linda Levin; Michael A Lamba; Ronald E Warnick; John C Breneman Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-09-23 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Luis Souhami; Wendy Seiferheld; David Brachman; Ervin B Podgorsak; Maria Werner-Wasik; Robert Lustig; Christopher J Schultz; William Sause; Paul Okunieff; Jan Buckner; Lucia Zamorano; Minesh P Mehta; Walter J Curran Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-11-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Hendrik A Wolff; Daniela M Wagner; Hans Christiansen; Clemens F Hess; Hilke Vorwerk Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2010-09-13 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Haisong Liu; David W Andrews; James J Evans; Maria Werner-Wasik; Yan Yu; Adam Paul Dicker; Wenyin Shi Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2016-02-11 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Marie Huss; Pierre Barsoum; Ernest Dodoo; Georges Sinclair; Iuliana Toma-Dasu Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2015-11-08 Impact factor: 2.102